Use of Augmented and Virtual Reality in Remote Higher Education: A Systematic Umbrella Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is really good.
- Clear methodology
- Important and useful results
- Scientific language
I have no extra comments or requests for the authors except to change second to section from "Materials and Methods" to "Methodology" that seems more appropriate.
Nice work!
Author Response
Thank You for the effort of reviewing our work!
We have updated the title of the second section from "Materials and Methods" to "Methodology" as suggested.
Best regards,
Authors
Reviewer 2 Report
The work exposed in the article has a current and pertinent goal with regard to remote learning. Due to the covid-19 pandemic schools of all levels were forced to transition to distance learning and it is fundamental to know the solutions that emerged, in this case, regarding the use of augmented reality.
The document is well organized, using and adequate structure. The ideas are presented in a clear manner.
The authors start by arguing the pertinence of the study in the Introduction section, allowing the reader to get acquainted with the aim of the study. The aim of the study is well delimited, however it would be clearer for the reader that the research question was also presented in this section, besides it is not identifiable in Table 1, as said by the authors.
Aspects to improve:
- Introduction, 1st paragraph: identify/explain which problems are associated to remote learning compared to on-site learning, specifically the ones that were to be mitigated;
- Introduction, 2nd paragraph: present a summary characterization of the research programme initiated by the government. Also include the reference or identification of the programme.
In the Materials and Methods section the authors present the main options and procedures, however some aspects need further clarification or adjustment:
- After Table 1 include a text that explains its content;
- Section 2.1: Didn’t the search include the keywords “engagement” and “performance”? Was there a filter for articles concerning the Latvian context or was the search worldwide?
- Figure 1 needs to be called upon in the text. Maybe even reduce its size so it does not cut the text narrative. The suggestion is to present the figure after section 2.4, along with the main ideas that lead to the flow chart.
The results section, although containing the main options and evidences extracted from the articles included, should be enriched with further discussion (e.g. what is the meaning of engagement?; what type of performance are we talking about?; what type of AR/VR resources are in order?)
Aspects to improve:
- Results section, 2nd paragraph: correct the word “measurerd”;
Aspects to improve in the Discussion section:
- Discussion section, 3rd paragraph: correct the word “excercises”;
- Along the text incorporate the references that support the conclusions.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
The work exposed in the article has a current and pertinent goal with regard to remote learning. Due to the covid-19 pandemic schools of all levels were forced to transition to distance learning and it is fundamental to know the solutions that emerged, in this case, regarding the use of augmented reality.
The document is well organized, using and adequate structure. The ideas are presented in a clear manner.
Thank You for the thorough review! We have updated the manuscript where possible and explained where changes are not possible – detailed description below.
Point 1: The authors start by arguing the pertinence of the study in the Introduction section, allowing the reader to get acquainted with the aim of the study. The aim of the study is well delimited, however it would be clearer for the reader that the research question was also presented in this section, besides it is not identifiable in Table 1, as said by the authors.
Response 1: We have updated the introduction to include the research question in the second paragraph, as well as clarified, the contents of the Table 1 both in the text and table caption.
Point 2: Aspects to improve:
Introduction, 1st paragraph: identify/explain which problems are associated to remote learning compared to on-site learning, specifically the ones that were to be mitigated;
Response 2: The 1st paragraph of introduction is updated with some of the main problems associated to remote learning compared to on-site learning.
Point 3: Introduction, 2nd paragraph: present a summary characterization of the research programme initiated by the government. Also include the reference or identification of the programme.
Response 3: The 2nd paragraph of the introduction was updated to presenta summary characterization of the research programme initiated by the government.
We have NOT currently included a reference to the specific identification of the programme as the article is currently Anonymized for the review purposes. The Funding section of the article will include the specific identification number of the programme, when the article is de-anonymized.
Point 4: In the Materials and Methods section the authors present the main options and procedures, however some aspects need further clarification or adjustment:
After Table 1 include a text that explains its content;
Response 4: Table1 contains structured definition of the research question in the form of PICOS according to PRISMA checklist. To make it more clear we have updated the paragraph before the Table 1 as well as caption of Table 1 as a response to Point 1 and believe this information does not require additional explanation. Please let us know if this is insufficient and additional explanation is required for clarity.
Point 5: Section 2.1: Didn’t the search include the keywords “engagement” and “performance”? Was there a filter for articles concerning the Latvian context or was the search worldwide?
Response 5: No, the search did not include these specific keywords, as many of the articles did not use them specifically and we wanted to include as much of the available data as we could. For example an article might have mentioned that “the student grades improved” which is one aspect of performance but not mention the keyword “performance” itself.
The search was world wide.
Point 6: Figure 1 needs to be called upon in the text. Maybe even reduce its size so it does not cut the text narrative. The suggestion is to present the figure after section 2.4, along with the main ideas that lead to the flow chart.
Response 6: Figure 1 was already called upon in the text, specifically –the first sentence of Section 2. We have reduced the size of the Figure 1 as requested, so that it fits right under the paragraph refering to it. We will not move it after Section 2.4 as this information needs to be presented at the beginning of the section, while the rest of the Section 2 clarifies this information in more detail afterwards.
Point 7: The results section, although containing the main options and evidences extracted from the articles included, should be enriched with further discussion (e.g. what is the meaning of engagement?; what type of performance are we talking about?; what type of AR/VR resources are in order?).
Response 7: In the results section the 2nd paragraph has been split tocaintain two additional paragraphs in the middle containing further discussion on the meaning of engagement, performance, AR and VR resources in the context of this research.
Point 8: Aspects to improve:
Results section, 2nd paragraph: correct the word “measurerd”;
Response 8: We have fixed the word “measured” in 2nd paragraph of Results section.
Point 9: Aspects to improve in the Discussion section:
Discussion section, 3rd paragraph: correct the word “excercises”;
Response 9: We have fixed the word “exercises” in 3rd paragraph of Discussion section.
Point 10: Along the text incorporate the references that support the conclusions.
Response 10: We have updated to discussion section to incorporate references supporting the conclusions. Specifically in paragraphs 3, 4, 8, 10, 11 and 12 of the Discussion section.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is well structured and the work is comprehensively described and referred. The topic is of actual interest even the work it is only a "review of literature reviews" and therefore can't be considered to bring an outstanding scientific added value.
One useful information and conclusion would be related to how much used are VR/AR technologies in fields besides medicine. Then some statistical data regarding the usage of these technologies in different stages of remote education process - not only in a table format.
Author Response
Thank You for reviewing our work!
As per Your request we have expanded the second to last paragraph of the Results section to include the proportion of use of AR/VR technologies in medical/non-medical education, as well as some statistics on the stages of remote education process.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors made an effort to correct/complete/discuss ideas and concepts called upon in the first review.
